The Senate on Tuesday rejected, 40-59, a symbolic attempt to strike ethanol tax subsidies as Democrats are working on a deal to hold at least one vote on ethanol next week.

The amendment from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) fell well short of the necessary 60 votes to invoke cloture and limit debate. Five Democrats supported the amendment and 12 Republican ethanol backers, largely from the Midwest, opposed it.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Coburn’s amendment would have repealed a 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit to blend ethanol in gasoline that is set to expire at the end of the year. It is estimated that the tax credit would be worth upward of $6 billion if it were to continue the whole year. The amendment also would have repealed a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff on ethanol imports.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters this afternoon he will hold an ethanol vote by June 24 as part of a deal with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who had initially co-sponsored Coburn’s amendment.

It is unclear whether there will be a vote only on the amendment from Feinstein or whether an additional vote on an alternative measure, like the one offered from Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), will be allowed.

Feinstein tried to get Coburn to withdraw his amendment shortly before the vote, noting objections by Democratic leaders over the process by which he secured Tuesday’s vote.

“There are real concerns about the process used to bring this amendment to the floor, and I think that has created some, unfortunately, very bad feelings which even are enough to affect people’s votes,” Feinstein said.

Feinstein ended up voting against the amendment — as did several other traditional Democratic opponents to ethanol subsidies. She said more time was needed to try to work out a deal with ethanol backers on possibly continuing some type of federal assistance for the corn-based additive.

Tuesday’s vote would have been closer — and may even have been successful — if it had been simply considered on substantive grounds, because a bipartisan group of senators from both coasts and elsewhere are opposed to continuing decades-long federal assistance for corn ethanol.

"I think we had the votes,” Feinstein told reporters before a closed-door Senate Democratic policy lunch that preceded the vote.

Indeed, several Democrats who ended up voting against the amendment — including Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Ben Cardin of Maryland — indicated before the policy lunch they were inclined to support the amendment.

Coburn surprised Senate leaders in both parties last Thursday when he went to the floor and quickly secured a vote for his amendment. He did so by calling up an unrelated amendment he had filed to economic development legislation and swapping out the details with the repeal of the ethanol credit. He then filed a motion to invoke cloture on the amendment before anyone knew what was happening.

Coburn has defended his tactic as “true and proper procedure” and said those who voted against the amendment merely on procedural grounds have a lot to answer for in their states. “Go home and tell people you refused to vote on the amendment because you didn’t like the way it was brought up. Let’s see how that sells to the American people,” he said.

Meanwhile, ethanol supporters have upped the ante in their bid to continue getting federal help amid higher pressure to chop federal spending.

About a dozen senators, led by Thune and Klobuchar, are proposing to immediately end — as of July 1 — the existing blender tax credit and replace it with a variable blender tax credit linked to the price of crude oil through 2014.

Robin Bravender contributed to this report.

This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 3:56 p.m. on June 14, 2011.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misidentified Sen. Thune's party affiliation and state.

I am in a bad dream. This is REPUBLICANS who are stopping this idiotic subsidy. This means that EVERY gallon of gas I purchase, which has 15% alcohol in it, that I am paying, IN MY FEDERAL TAXES six cents a gallon subsidy to the Ethanol corporations... not farmers, the corporations who make ethanol. Do the math, oh that 'silly math' and see for yourself.

So the Republicans should PASS this and I will get an immediate ?? cents a gallon cut, or at least "Lower the Deficit" by the total amount of this Subsidy. Good god man, I am beginning to realize the Republicans may "talk the deficit talk" but not do the walk. I am SORRY Democrats may be for this deficit reducing elimination of this subsidy, but that is no reason to "Just Say No!" again.

Wow, what got you all ****ed up.It was the Demorats that voted to keep the subsides.

The ethanol subsidy was suppose to end Dec 2010. It was opposed ob bipartisan grounds. The Dem leadership in the Senate kept it out of every bill thru 2010. It didn;t have the votes to get passed all of 2010 so he attached it to the tax compromise bill.

Dec 9, 2010

On Wednesday, Chuck Grassley, a Republican senator from Iowa, said in no uncertain terms that the new tax deal will include an extension of those ethanol subsidies. Grassley, who is a ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, made the announcement despite the fact that there is strong opposition to the subsidies from Democrats, Republicans, environmentalists, and trade groups.

The reason it didn't pass this week is because Coburn wanted all the glory for himself. He tricked the Senators and brought up the bill others had worked on in a bipartisan manner as his very own.

The Senate, as a group just slapped his hand for his ungentleman-like behaviour. It doesn't mean the democrats or the republicans want to continue the taxes. Far from it. They all want the credit they deserve for ending the subsidies.

The reason it didn't pass this week is because Coburn wanted all the glory for himself. He tricked the Senators and brought up the bill others had worked on in a bipartisan manner as his very own.

The Senate, as a group just slapped his hand for his ungentleman-like behaviour. It doesn't mean the democrats or the republicans want to continue the taxes. Far from it. They all want the credit they deserve for ending the subsidies.

The chances of the subsidy being completely killed are pretty good. The fact that Chuck Grassley, one of the most adamant subsidy supporters and the man who demanded it be put in the 2010 tax extension is trying to scurry out a bill to save some of the subsidy. Hopefully they cut him at the knees. Essnetailly 10 states..20 Senators will support the subsidy b/c it's a boondoggle for their state. So it's really up the other 80 Senators to kill it.

Grassley's proposal would cut the credit to 20 cents in 2012 and then to 15 cents in 2013. From 2014 through 2016, the credit could be as high as 30 cents if the price of oil is $50 a barrel or below but would fall as crude prices rise. At $80 oil, the ethanol credit would drop to 6 cents and would disappear when oil reaches $90. As of late, oil prices have been running well over $100. The subsidy would expire after 2016.

continuing some type of federal assistance for the corn-based additive.

Enough of this picking winners and choosers. End the subsidy.

In fact, it's time for an overhaul of all corporate taxes. End all subsidies, drop to a lower flat tax, and let the markets pick the winners and losers. Put all those corporate tax lawyers in the unemployment line and put the rest of our people back to work.

I think the American people should have the opportunity to have a symbolic vote to tell all these politicians to kiss our axx. These jokers spend more time pretending to care about the good of America when all they care about is staying on the gravy train. This is the time to vote them all out and see if we can at least find a few straight shooters in the next bunch who will not lie their way into office only to turn into this collection of clowns. A 16% approval rating and going down. We have met the enemy and then we elected them to congress.

If you’re an American consumer of crude oil, which category would incorporate everyone who drives, consumes produce and manufactured products delivered via road and rail, wards off frigid cold with #2 heating oil in your homes, or labors in a factory/office kept functioning thanks to semi-liquid gold, you may say that ethanol takes the stink prize.

If you cook with corn oil, use masa harina, or just love tortillas, ethanol should beat Sean Penn in the stink run by at least a mile since the brainstorm of conservationists and numbnuts at the EPA which inspired the idea of converting a valuable food staple, corn, into ethyl alcohol biofuel and blending up to 10% of the stuff into gasoline has sent the price of corn into the stratosphere.

And, notice what it’s done for gas prices!

Ostensibly re-introduced, (after Henry Ford gave up on the idea almost a century ago), to curb America’s dependence on foreign oil imports, another government failure, ethanol has evolved into a typical, wasteful boondoggle. It serves to enrich farm states and has made major political capital for pols in those states while helping to impoverish those needing gasoline to survive and those dependent on corn to eat.

A remarkably slow-learner in our un-scientific survey on whether ethanol or Sean Penn stink more, the Hollywood star would be the sure winner among those who appreciate second-rate acting and off-camera demonstrations of total ignorance.

As noted here in an earlier article, “BiofuelsWatch.com has enumerated the numerous negatives associated with ethanol production and use. They include the explosive danger, (it’s more flammable than gasoline), its solvent, drying, and water-absorbent properties which can lead to engine contamination and the disintegration of rubber and plastic, its lower energy value, its irritant and cancer-causing potential, its greater expense, and, primarily, its effect on food production.” (http://bit.ly/kwcHWa)

As an added ironic fillip to the ethanol controversy, in the face of Republican efforts to put an end to federal subsidies promoting increased ethanol production by decreasing food production, the United States Department of Agriculture added a dumb insult to serious injury by announcing a push for more “flex-fuel [ethanol] pumps” at filling stations. (http://bit.ly/m0NtHb)

There’s nothing quite like enhancing the ridiculous with the totally absurd. Maybe Mexicanos and Taco Bell can learn to substitute feather grass for maize.

Sean Penn, who makes Ben Affleck and Charlie Sheen look smart, is notable as an admirer of Cuba’s Castros, hater of George W, Bush, defender of the LGBT, and savior of New Orleans and Haiti,. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1...